We should a placeholder in the primer for discussing RPC vs. the Web examples

15:45:10 [chris]

+1

15:45:53 [Henrik]

Suggest saying that "wherever possible, parameters identifying a resource should be encoded in the URI"

15:46:00 [chris]

+!

15:46:05 [chris]

+1

15:46:25 [DavidF]

resolved: add a statement that the spec is not meant to imply that resources be identified to the nth degreee, and there is no specific rule for at what level resources be identified

15:46:29 [chris]

s/possible/practical/ ?

15:47:56 [Henrik]

ok

15:48:57 [Henrik]

Remove the sentence: Such arguments MAY be redundantly carried as method arguments in the SOAP body (see 4.2.1 RPC Invocation.). We should put something to this effect into the primer

15:49:00 [DavidF]

resolved: delete "Such arguments MAY be redundantly carried as method arguments in the SOAP body (see 4.2.1 RPC Invocation.) Thus, in the example above, the PartNumber and an indication referencing the QuantityInStock resource SHOULD be encoded in the URI. Either one or two arguments (I.e. either the newQuantity or both the partNumber and the newQuantity) SHOULD be encoded as arguments in the SOAP body. The SOAP 1.2 recommendation (this specification)

15:50:37 [DavidF]

resolve: add examples to primer showing use of uri and info in msg

15:50:39 [DavidF]

agenda

15:50:42 [DavidF]

agenda?

15:51:42 [Henrik]

Change "MAY" to "SHOULD" in "Underlying protocols designed for use on the World Wide Web provide for manipulation of resources using a small set of Web methods such as GET, PUT, POST, and DELETE. Bindings to such underlying protocols MAY use the Web Method Specification Feature to give applications control over the Web methods to be used when sending a SOAP message.

15:51:42 [Henrik]

"

15:53:56 [Henrik]

Drop the forward reference of the MEP "one-way-pull" to the GET stuff in the HTTP binding

15:55:13 [chris]

resolved: Drop the forward reference of the MEP "one-way-pull" to the GET stuff in the HTTP binding

15:55:41 [Henrik]

With edits, proposal is fine

15:55:55 [chris]

+1

15:56:12 [Henrik]

if we can get edits in today then we can review tomorrow and talk about it to WG today

15:57:17 [Henrik]

Can we get it to the tag EOB tomorrow?

15:58:28 [chris]

are we considering edits as the comments (editorial) in the various responses to date (henrik, chris, marc) plus what we resolved today?

15:59:19 [Henrik]

?

15:59:30 [chris]

??

15:59:47 [Henrik]

davidf to put together a couple of sentences about what we were thinking and send it around.

16:00:01 [Henrik]

chris, I didn't understand your comment?

16:00:30 [chris]

what I was trying to understand is what we meant by edits for this round before we make this public

16:00:47 [jjm-lap]

noah, I know the XML, but can't help tonight

16:01:03 [Henrik]

I can help

16:02:21 [jjm-lap]

noah, I've sent some comments as well by email

16:02:41 [Henrik]

noah and henrik to go through editorial nits

16:04:29 [jjm-lap]

henrik, will you update the stylesheet on Gudge's CVS with Noah's?

16:04:46 [Henrik]

think they are the same

16:05:02 [jjm-lap]

no, he (at least) changed the green

16:06:45 [Henrik]

ok

16:14:56 [Henrik]

we will stick with "SOAP response" as name

16:15:13 [Henrik]

we will take question about clarification in section 2 to email (which is already the case)